One of Karl’s stupid little tricks is to rattle of some inane – and totally unsupported – claim or other, followed up immediately by some variant of the phrase “You do know this, right?”
For example: he is incapable of uttering discussing the Sandy Hook shootings, without referring to them as “Sandy Hook, line and sinker”. the stupid fuck is literally incapable of not engaging in that particular verbal “tic”.
If challenged on any of his claims, or presented with counter-evidence, he simply responds with some variant of “you do know that the official story is bullshit, right?”
Another variant of this are statements to the effect of “you do realize that we’re all already part of a single, trans-physical ‘global consciousness’, right?”
Why no, Karl, I don’t “know” (or “realize”) ANY of those things. Please provide me with evidence to back up your claims, and don’t expect me to take your bullshit on “faith”.
What’s that you say? You want me to “do my own research?” Well gee, Karl, it would be really, really, really nice if you could be bothered to at least point me in the general direction of where to begin doing such “research”.
After all, you’ve (supposedly) been “doing your own research” on whatever it is that you’re always babbling about, for over twenty-five years at this point (since at least 1992, when you first shoved your head up Bill cooper’s ass!) 🙂
And no, I’m not going to bother sitting through an 8 hour video of David Icke — just so I can get the “background” to understand the other 8 hour video (which is also – not coincidentally – the same David Icke appearance.)
Unless, of course, you can’t find me another source corroborating David Icke’s gibberish (other than those he plagiarized without acknowledging that fact, that is.)
As usual (smirk), Ayn Rand discusses exactly this gimmick (in a slightly different context):
There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . . . [It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: “Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.” . . . The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.
In today’s epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as “The Argument from Intimidation.”
The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.”
In the same vein, if I fail to uncritically swallow whatever Karl happens to be gibbering about at any given moment, it is because I am a “sheeple”, or because I (supposedly) haven’t had the “paranormal experiences” he has (supposedly) had, or any number of other asinine, sneering cop-outs he’s used over the years.
His last several piles of “brain-droppings” centered around the (supposed) “Monarch” mind-control project, and the “fact” that the cosmos itself is trying to “tell him something” by means of an inordinate number of burnt-out license plate lights.
You read that right: the “Universal Consciousness” is deliberately causing license-plate lights to burn out unusually frequently, on vehicles which will *eventually* be located somewhere that Karl will notice them.
And yet, I’m pathological in some way, because I have the temerity to be skeptical about his inane babbling.
Every day I don’t deal with Karl makes my life just that much better.